This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Does anyone else think this reads too much like a marketing pitch? I work for Cisco, so it's not appropriate for me to edit it, but it reads somewhat like competitive collateral... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.103.25.233 (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the whole article has this problem and I have marked it. --Kvng (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Most of this section is written about products that are no longer commercially available. Hence complaint on advertising is not verifiable <removing label>. Please contribute to article if some content is not high quality (currently rated B-class) Ckt2packet (talk) 05:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I made some effort towards identifying specific issues with the article and fixing them where the solution was obvious. The article needs a lot of work to ensure that is is neutral, though. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

An edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

I have a financial connection with Juniper Networks.

The current article looks basically on track to me, but contains a large volume of primary sources and is about ten years out-of-date. It includes trivial promotions of the sales staff, but not more significant recent corporate issues. It contains a dedicated Criticisms and Controversy section, which I feel is equally as non-neutral as the dedicated Awards section, especially since it relies on primary sources and does not meet the criteria at WP:ORGAWARDS.

I've prepared what I feel is a GAN-ready draft at user:CorporateM/Juniper Networks that I was hoping a disinterested editor may consider as a replacement for the current. I realize the impossibility of someone reviewing a 100+ cite article on a $4 billion+ organization with almost 20 years of history. I'll be poking around a bit to see if I can find someone with enough knowledge on the topic to be able to tell whether it's neutral. CorporateM (Talk) 19:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

For the sake of transparency and future record-keeping, I'm providing links to where this draft has been discussed here and here. CorporateM (Talk) 15:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll take this. Feel free to revert any of my copyedits or to disagree with any of my comments. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 21:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Unless you have a very strong reason, it's not a good idea to see image sizes—doing so overrides user settings, and this kind of fine tuning almost inevitably ends up being less optimal that one would suppose given the huge variety in screen sizes and orientations out there.

The images didn't fit well in-line with the table without custom sizes; I can leave them as standard thumbs, but it was kind of a mess that way if I remember right. CorporateM (Talk) 05:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

This is the thing—what looks fine on one screen will look awkaward on another, and there's no way to optimize the image sizes for all different kinds of screens, which is why it's generally best to leave them alone. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 08:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

its first day on the New York Stock Exchange was two months later: I imagine it should be easy to find the actual date.

DoneThe source doesn't give the exact day of that month that it was listed, but I did find out it was actually originally listed on NASDAQ before moving to NYSE later on, so I corrected that and put a month/year. CorporateM (Talk) 05:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there some reason for not stating so in the article? Curly Turkey¡gobble! 08:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Done Well, for something like that, I would probably just include one or the other (the announcement date or the appointment date), just like acquisition tables are often based on the announcement date that is better covered in secondary sources, rather than when the acquisition closed. Anyway, I went ahead and added it so there are both dates now. CorporateM (Talk) 01:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Juniper acquired intrusion deception company Mykonos Software: should that be "detection"?

Ah, I can see this is explained later in the article. This will be confusing—can the explanation be moved up?

Not done Not sure about product history, but for corporate history a "Recent history"-type section is pretty de-facto. They usually include about 10+ years, so this section won't get full until the year 2025 or so, at which point we'll have to start pushing stuff into more historical section titles. CorporateM (Talk) 05:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Unless there has been a consensus that this is the way things should be done, the fact that's it's the "de facto" way of doing it says no more than editors have picked it up from other articles when looking at how to structure an article. Poor practice is poor practice. Imagine the article were written ten years ago. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 08:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I took a look at a few FAs on company's still in operation; I see that it's not "de-facto" as I had believed, but rather the precise style seems to vary with stuff like "Recent operations" or "2010s" both being in use. What about "From 2015?" or do you have a better suggestion? CorporateM (Talk) 01:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, given the section's only a few paragraphs long, why not just merge it with the preceding "Further developments" section? Curly Turkey¡gobble! 01:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh I got my wires crossed. I changed the "Recent updates" section from the product area to "From 2015". I think the Recent History and Further Development sections are too long to combine; the combined 6.5 paragraphs would become one of the largest sections on the page. Considering at least some FA articles follow a similar format, I think we're fine. CorporateM (Talk) 02:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The main reason I wanted the chart was because it shows that the stock price did fall back down to regular levels, whereas the source material only really covers its explosive growth. CorporateM (Talk) 14:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, two issues:

That that was your aim isn't clear—I'm going over teh articel word-by-word and it wasn't clear to me, so it's far less likely it will be to casual readers

More importantly, it's a Fair Use image for which a free equivalent could be made, thus violating WP:NFCCP #1. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 21:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Curly. Regarding the "When" annotation in the Lead, I've re-checked the source and it literally just says "in recent years". The source is from 2014. Any suggestions? CorporateM (Talk) 21:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd go with an "As of 2014" until you could find something better. Curly Turkey¡gobble! 21:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

In this discussion with @Thincat:, we seemed to agree on a slightly modified version with a specific date and market-share reference:

"Juniper grew to $673 million in annual revenues by 2000. By 2001 it had a 37 percent share of the core routers market, challenging Cisco's once-dominant market-share."<ref name="three"/>

Though I am making many other minor tweaks boldly in response to GA review feedback, because this content is about a competitor, I felt it would be more appropriate to use Request Edit. CorporateM (Talk) 21:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, there are several errors in the following text, some of which were recently introduced by an IP here and some of which were my own errors

In October 2013, Juniper introduced another proprietary protocol network architecture called MetaFabric for a new set of switches, the QFX5100 family, that were needed to adopt the MetaFabric architecture.[119]

Corrections are as follows:

The source says "networking architecture" as oppose to "networking protocol"

Juniper said Metafabric is not "proprietary". Checking the source and doing a Google search seem to verify this. The only thing I found in a quick Google search is here where a Juniper spokesperson says it is not proprietary.

The statement "not IETF or IEEE compliant..." is currently unsourced, but I did find a source for it not being TRILL compliant.[3] The source says this is because Juniper is an advocate against TRILL (not really sure if any of this belongs on this page though, rather than a sub-page on Metafabric if one exists)

I wrote "the QFX5100 family, that were needed to adopt the MetaFabric architecture", but the source just says "that is one of the foundations of the new architecture" not that the switch is required.

Those all look reasonable to me, so I implemented the edit request. Please check my work for errors. As always when I respond to edit requests, I take full responsibility for any changes I make. Also, I have no COI regarding Juniper or their competitors (The area of engineering I work in mostly involves microcontrollers that cost less than a dime -- the sort of thing you find inside toasters and children's toys). --Guy Macon (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @Guy Macon:! Just one nit-pick. It seemed a bit awkward that it says Metafabric is "for" a set of switches. I double-checked the source and it doesn't look like it's built specifically for the switch. CorporateM (Talk) 14:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Good point. What wor.ding would you suggest? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I researched through the Juniper equipment documentation and I have not found any Juniper equipment that is capable of IEEE 802.1aq shortest path bridging. 166.173.249.212 (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI - I've posted a suggestion that we re-purpose the well-sourced summary of Juniper's acquisition history from this article to the sub-article, as suggested by WP:Summary style for sub-articles. CorporateM (Talk) 20:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

1. Most of the references to Juniper Networks and Cisco Systems only use the first part of the name of the companies. I fixed the introduction and the next two paragraphs but then I stopped because the amount of fixing is rather large.

2. Internet is a proper word and needs to be capitalized. I see many instances of it that are not capitalized and need to be fixed. I fixed a few but, again, more need to be fixed.

3. Some information about the crash of the company stock after 2000 should be included in the article.

4. "Juniper promoted its products as stable enough to make IT staff bored and Cisco announced lab tests from Light Reading proved its products were superior to Juniper, whereas the publication itself reached the opposite conclusion." I don't understand this sentence. It seems contradictory and illogical.